A crack down on the biffs and wasters?

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Zarathustra, Jan 6, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Over the last couple of weeks there have been a couple of posts (one in the REME forum and one in the RLC forum) discussing the possibility of getting rid of the long term down graded and serial fatties.

    Before I left my battalion a few months ago it had been put on Part Ones that there would be a crack down on the serial fatties who continually fail basic tests. This I can understand and would fully support.

    But what should happen to our long term downgraded?

    Like all other parts of the Army the Infantry as a whole must have a lot of biffs of one type or another, some with legitimate injuries and some who're afraid of hard work. I'm all for the one who can be proved to be pulling the wool getting the boot but what can be done about the guys with legitimate injuries?

    The Infantry need deployable blokes but does that mean we should remove all long term downgraded/non deployable guys, could they not be found jobs in the stores or RHQ/BHQ or various other non deployable jobs.

    This would all depend on a case by case review by the MO and other grown up people, but IF this were to be brought in across the Infantry should it be one in all in or should there be different rules for people who were injured on Ops and people injured through sport/general work type things?

    Anyway, I'll wrap this up before I start rambling too much. What do you the esteemed member of the Arrse Infantry elite think?

    Disclaimer - I haven't heard any rumour about getting rid of our downgraded am just after opinions.
  2. In an ideal world, if there is a genuine injury/wound that inhibits a footslogger from carrying out his primary role and the Regiment is willing to put him in a non footslogger role (not that there will be that many posts) within the Battalion/Regiment then they should be employed within those.
    If there are no vacancies and if the person has the aptitude and/or willing to retrain in a non footslogger role within another Corps/Regiment and of course they are willing to take them on, then their services/experiences should be utilised to the full.
    If they are not willing or there are no vacancies then they should be given a full training programme, preferably with the aid of civilian companies, to assist them retrain for their future lives outside the services.
    As you say each case may well be totally different but so must also be the willingness of both the Regiment and the individual to adapt to any new role.
    There is no such thing as a job for life anymore and if the individual has the proper training and support then they can lead a full and productive life in the big bad world.
  3. True, which is the way it should happen. Indeed my old CO told all the guys who lost limbs etc on Herrick 6 that if they wished to soldier on then he would find them a job somewhere.

    But for the guys who're soldier on should they still be able to be promoted and have a chance to have a decent career, or should they get told tough shit you're a biff and you'll be a bod forever.
  4. Yet you'd bin the TA "Enablers"?
  5. Eh, who's mentioned binning guys from the TA?
  6. IMO, if the Regiment is willing to keep them on, then they should be treated for promotion the same as everyone else. Yes they may not be able to complete a full Cadre, however that can be overcome quite easily.
  7. B_AND_T

    B_AND_T LE Book Reviewer

    If they did get rid of them who would man rear parties?

    That is not a piss taking question.
  8. Crow_Bag

  9. Sorry, mine was a tongue-in-cheek comment on a serious subject.

    There is a regular (pardon the pun) debate/slanging match about non-deployable TA Officers, NCOs & Soldiers who may not go off to collect coconuts & biff the Fuzzy-Wuzzy but who do provide support services back in their units.

    Some feel that these people should be hounded out of their uniforms for being fat biffs while others get sentimental about old LCpl McShagnasty in the stores. I was suggesting what is sauce for the TA goose could be sauce for the Regular gander. One Army concept 'n all...
  10. Currently being P7 HO I am all in favour of long term biffs being kept in if there's a job for them. I felt this way when I wasn't a biff too.

    There are plenty of jobs around RHQ/BHQ and other places that don't appeal to me as an Infantry soldier, but if it was a case of work in RHQ or get out, I'd work in RHQ.
  11. 2 Points IMHO:

    1: The standard and application of unit MO's is wayward and not standardised. Our MO went way off plan when he heard about this and was trying to bin anyway with any kind of injury, temporary included; to that end other assessments must be included such as physios and occupational health teams.

    2: There is currently no top level policy on the employment of soldiers seriously injured on operations. Until there is the way ahead will be slightly adhoc - clearly those who have sacrificed there physical (or mental) well being should be employed usefully wherever possible.

    The case of binning P7 Perm (from non operational injuries) is entirely fair. If we are in the luxurious position of being able to top the Army up to the highest deployability levels then we should. Granted there are some non-deployable posts that they can fill but invariably due to trickle posting etc and career profiling and variety invariably retaining non deployable soldiers places greater strain and shorter tour intervals on deployable soldiers. This latter point is acknowledged at all of the major levels of command and will influence emerging policy and direction.

    Why should the forces retain soldier (sailors and airmen) who are unable to fulfil there primary role when no other industry or employer is required to do so.
  12. Sorry to state the inevitable, and interesting subject crow_bag, but with Herrick resulting in more casualties as the operation continues, what started as a relatively small issue impacting a small percentage of guys, the numbers really must be dictating that a clear and universal approach is taken. Otherwise, you run the danger of different units applying different rules in different ways.

    As for the TA enablers. See the enabling argument, also well aware of the serial appealers who aren't that critical, but nonetheless are resulting in members of their unit doing more than their fair share of tours. As all mobilisations are "voluntary" (and this has a different perspective depending on your unit / capbadge / skills), the enabling argument can conveniantly be put to one side though. Which saves the MOD having to address the serial appealer types.

    On crow_bag's OP though - if the numbers are increasing, then are we seeing the MOD devote time, money and effort into resettlement for these soldiers, or is this again "unit dependant"?
  13. This is where the difference could be made for people who have to be discharged due to being unemployable. If there was a set of guide lines laid down so that everyone recieved the same treatment regardless of unit or service then I think most people would accept it.
  14. what about all the people who regularly fail bft's and more importantly can't tab, maybe they to threaten them with discharge to get their arses in gear
  15. That should automatically happen in units anyway. It does in my unit.

    The problem we have is as infantry units redeploy on Herrick tours they end up with more and more injured. What happens when we get to a stage when a Battalion may have conducted 8 tours and have over 100 permanently downgraded soldiers? The Bn in effect will be undeployable considering you can add another 50 onto that from injuries back in the UK and run of the mill mincers and wasters.